CONTEXT: No randomized trials have examined treatments for prescription opioid dependence, despite its increasing prevalence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of brief and extended buprenorphine hydrochloride-naloxone hydrochloride treatment, with different counseling intensities, for patients dependent on prescription opioids. DESIGN: Multisite, randomized clinical trial using a 2-phase adaptive treatment research design. Brief treatment (phase 1) included 2-week buprenorphine-naloxone stabilization, 2-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. Patients with successful opioid use outcomes exited the study; unsuccessful patients entered phase 2: extended (12-week) buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, 4-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. SETTING: Ten US sites. Patients A total of 653 treatment-seeking outpatients dependent on prescription opioids. INTERVENTIONS: In both phases, patients were randomized to standard medical management (SMM) or SMM plus opioid dependence counseling; all received buprenorphine-naloxone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predefined "successful outcome" in each phase: composite measures indicating minimal or no opioid use based on urine test-confirmed self-reports. RESULTS: During phase 1, only 6.6% (43 of 653) of patients had successful outcomes, with no difference between SMM and SMM plus opioid dependence counseling. In contrast, 49.2% (177 of 360) attained successful outcomes in phase 2 during extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment (week 12), with no difference between counseling conditions. Success rates 8 weeks after completing the buprenorphine-naloxone taper (phase 2, week 24) dropped to 8.6% (31 of 360), again with no counseling difference. In secondary analyses, successful phase 2 outcomes were more common while taking buprenorphine-naloxone than 8 weeks after taper (49.2% [177 of 360] vs 8.6% [31 of 360], P < .001). Chronic pain did not affect opioid use outcomes; a history of ever using heroin was associated with lower phase 2 success rates while taking buprenorphine-naloxone. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription opioid-dependent patients are most likely to reduce opioid use during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment; if tapered off buprenorphine-naloxone, even after 12 weeks of treatment, the likelihood of an unsuccessful outcome is high, even in patients receiving counseling in addition to SMM.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: No randomized trials have examined treatments for prescription opioid dependence, despite its increasing prevalence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of brief and extended buprenorphine hydrochloride-naloxone hydrochloride treatment, with different counseling intensities, for patients dependent on prescription opioids. DESIGN: Multisite, randomized clinical trial using a 2-phase adaptive treatment research design. Brief treatment (phase 1) included 2-week buprenorphine-naloxone stabilization, 2-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. Patients with successful opioid use outcomes exited the study; unsuccessful patients entered phase 2: extended (12-week) buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, 4-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. SETTING: Ten US sites. Patients A total of 653 treatment-seeking outpatients dependent on prescription opioids. INTERVENTIONS: In both phases, patients were randomized to standard medical management (SMM) or SMM plus opioid dependence counseling; all received buprenorphine-naloxone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predefined "successful outcome" in each phase: composite measures indicating minimal or no opioid use based on urine test-confirmed self-reports. RESULTS: During phase 1, only 6.6% (43 of 653) of patients had successful outcomes, with no difference between SMM and SMM plus opioid dependence counseling. In contrast, 49.2% (177 of 360) attained successful outcomes in phase 2 during extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment (week 12), with no difference between counseling conditions. Success rates 8 weeks after completing the buprenorphine-naloxone taper (phase 2, week 24) dropped to 8.6% (31 of 360), again with no counseling difference. In secondary analyses, successful phase 2 outcomes were more common while taking buprenorphine-naloxone than 8 weeks after taper (49.2% [177 of 360] vs 8.6% [31 of 360], P < .001). Chronic pain did not affect opioid use outcomes; a history of ever using heroin was associated with lower phase 2 success rates while taking buprenorphine-naloxone. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription opioid-dependent patients are most likely to reduce opioid use during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment; if tapered off buprenorphine-naloxone, even after 12 weeks of treatment, the likelihood of an unsuccessful outcome is high, even in patients receiving counseling in addition to SMM.
Authors: Raymond F Anton; Stephanie S O'Malley; Domenic A Ciraulo; Ron A Cisler; David Couper; Dennis M Donovan; David R Gastfriend; James D Hosking; Bankole A Johnson; Joseph S LoCastro; Richard Longabaugh; Barbara J Mason; Margaret E Mattson; William R Miller; Helen M Pettinati; Carrie L Randall; Robert Swift; Roger D Weiss; Lauren D Williams; Allen Zweben Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert P Schwartz; David A Highfield; Jerome H Jaffe; Joseph V Brady; Carol B Butler; Charles O Rouse; Jason M Callaman; Kevin E O'Grady; Robert J Battjes Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2006-01
Authors: San Keller; Carla M Bann; Sheri L Dodd; Jeff Schein; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Declan T Barry; Mark Beitel; Christopher J Cutter; Brian Garnet; Dipa Joshi; Richard S Schottenfeld; Bruce J Rounsaville Journal: Am J Addict Date: 2009 Sep-Oct
Authors: D Andrew Tompkins; George E Bigelow; Joseph A Harrison; Rolley E Johnson; Paul J Fudala; Eric C Strain Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: B J Materson; D J Reda; R A Preston; W C Cushman; B M Massie; E D Freis; M S Kochar; R J Hamburger; C Fye; R Lakshman Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 1995-09-11
Authors: Mary Jo Larson; Michael Paasche-Orlow; Debbie M Cheng; Christine Lloyd-Travaglini; Richard Saitz; Jeffrey H Samet Journal: Addiction Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Brent A Moore; David A Fiellin; Declan T Barry; Lynn E Sullivan; Marek C Chawarski; Patrick G O'Connor; Richard S Schottenfeld Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael W Otto; Bridget A Hearon; R Kathryn McHugh; Amanda W Calkins; Elizabeth Pratt; Heather W Murray; Steven A Safren; Mark H Pollack Journal: J Psychoactive Drugs Date: 2014 Nov-Dec
Authors: Jeanette M Tetrault; Janet P Tate; E Jennifer Edelman; Adam J Gordon; Vincent Lo Re; Joseph K Lim; David Rimland; Joseph Goulet; Stephen Crystal; Julie R Gaither; Cynthia L Gibert; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Lynn E Fiellin; Kendall Bryant; Amy C Justice; David A Fiellin Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2016-06-06
Authors: Margaret L Griffin; Dorian R Dodd; Jennifer S Potter; Lindsay S Rice; William Dickinson; Steven Sparenborg; Roger D Weiss Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Roger D Weiss; Jennifer Sharpe Potter; Margaret L Griffin; R Kathryn McHugh; Deborah Haller; Petra Jacobs; John Gardin; Dan Fischer; Kristen D Rosen Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2014-04-04
Authors: Sudie E Back; Daniel F Gros; Jenna L McCauley; Julianne C Flanagan; Elizabeth Cox; Kelly S Barth; Kathleen T Brady Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2014-04-12 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Richard Saitz; Debbie M Cheng; Michael Winter; Theresa W Kim; Seville M Meli; Don Allensworth-Davies; Christine A Lloyd-Travaglini; Jeffrey H Samet Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272